From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rename misleading "check filesystem" reboot option NL translation Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:29:04 +0000 Message-ID: <8BAC0753-95C7-4132-A20E-EE5C0CC8EAB6@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: <8e0a77f6-718b-5569-502c-37a45d055c2d@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4835337060104406414==" List-Id: --===============4835337060104406414== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oh, I overlooked this email. It sums up very well how I see this :) Great write. -Michael > On 19 Nov 2022, at 16:59, Adolf Belka wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 19/11/2022 16:20, Tom Rymes wrote: >> This does raise the question of how a user would repair filesystem errors = if this option only checks for errors and does not present the option to repa= ir any issues found. >>=20 >> Should the be an option to do that? > My view on that is that there should not be the option to repair. >=20 > Repair of a filesystem in some automated fashion without looking at the spe= cific errors involved and deciding the best way to fix them is more likely to= result in worse damage than to make things better. >=20 > If the filesystem involved is a journaling one and that doesn't fix things = on a reboot then I believe some pretty severe corruption is likely to have oc= curred and the best thing is to re-install IPFire and do a restore and/or loo= k at the smart data to see if the hard disk is on the way out rather than try= ing to fix the corrupted parts of the filesystem. >=20 > It might be a good idea to put the above info into the wiki page so that pe= ople have some guidance on the recommended approach if they end up with error= s from the fsck. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Adolf. >> Tom >>=20 >>> On Nov 19, 2022, at 7:47 AM, Leo-Andres Hofmann = wrote: >>>=20 >>> =EF=BB=BFOk, this was probably a bad idea. So please ignore/remove this p= atch. Sorry for the noise. >>>=20 >>>> Am 19.11.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Michael Tremer: >>>> I can second this. >>>>=20 >>>> Why is fsck more obvious then =E2=80=9Cfile system check=E2=80=9D? >>>>=20 >>>> It is a more technical term which does not provide any more detail in my= opinion. >>>>=20 >>>> -Michael >>>>=20 >>>>>> On 18 Nov 2022, at 18:02, Tom Rymes wrote: >>>>> I'm still confused by what a user might expect, OTHER than a fsck chec= k? >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 11/18/2022 10:42 AM, Robin Roevens wrote: >>>>>> Some users assume that "check filesystem" does more than just >>>>>> trigger a simple "fsck" run. This patch changes the button label to av= oid >>>>>> confusion. - NL translation >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Roevens >>>>>> --- >>>>>> langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl | 1 + >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>>> diff --git a/langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl b/langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl >>>>>> index 4fd6955cc..ebac2754a 100644 >>>>>> --- a/langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl >>>>>> +++ b/langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl >>>>>> @@ -1804,6 +1804,7 @@ >>>>>> 'read list' =3D> 'lijst met readonly hosts', >>>>>> 'real address' =3D> 'Echte adressen', >>>>>> 'reboot' =3D> 'Herstarten', >>>>>> +'reboot fsck' =3D> 'Herstart & start ‘fsck’', >>>>>> 'reboot ask' =3D> 'Herstarten?', >>>>>> 'reboot question' =3D> 'Extra vraag voor herstart en afsluiten', >>>>>> 'reboot schedule' =3D> 'Inplannen IPFire herstarts', >=20 > --=20 > Sent from my laptop --===============4835337060104406414==--